P KRISHNASAM Vs. HTL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 19.11.2009, made in I.A.No.20433 of 2009, in O.S.No.2614 of 2007, on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed the suit, in O.S.No.2614 of 2007, on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for a decree to declare that the -Retirement Notice- No.REF.C.1658, dated 30.3.2007, issued by the respondent management, as illegal, arbitrary and void and for a consequential order of injunction, restraining the respondent management from, in any way, altering or interfering with the service conditions of the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the reasons given by the Court below, for rejecting the request of the petitioner to reopen the evidence and to examine certain witnesses, is contrary to law and the facts of the case. THE learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, had stated that the petitioner has closed his evidence before a year and a half and therefore, his request for reopening his evidence, to examine certain witnesses, cannot be granted. THE reasons stated by the learned Judge cannot be sustained since, the need for reopening and examining certain witnesses had arisen only during the cross examination of the witnesses. THErefore, it cannot be said that the request made by the petitioner is belated in nature.